July 6, 2006

Amy Brundage , a spokesman for Kerry's political operation... said the Massachusetts Democrat generally does not get involved in primaries, though Kerry has made exceptions in the past for candidates he favors. Earlier this year, he helped raise money for three Iraq war veterans who were involved in contested Democratic primaries for House seats....

Brundage said that this year, Kerry is endorsing only candidates in contested primaries who are veterans.

Much as I respect military service, I think status as a veteran is a ridiculous single issue basis for deciding between candidates. Among other things, it has a discriminatory impact on women. And what about individuals who oppose the war, like Kerry himself? Presumably, they wouldn't enlist. Presumably, he wouldn't enlist. What is this posturing about?

ADDED: How could I have forgotten? Kerry's preference for veterans is anti-gay!

AND: And there are many disabled persons who cannot qualify for the military.

does anyone get the feeling that Kerry is not held in particularly high repute by his Democratic colleagues in the Senate? I was always struck by how little stump support he got in the 2004 campaign from his fellow club members.

He's demonstrating the depth and seriousness of his "patriotism", by making a risible, orthogonal, and entirely empty rhetorical gesture.

This year, the Democrats are asking themselves how they can help the public understand how substantial and serious they are on national security. Kerry's media advisors sat him down and said, "Listen, John, nothing says 'substance' like a stunt." Another choice was a camo necktie, but it didn't suit his complexion. He also considered parachuting onto the Capitol rotunda with a Ka-Bar gripped between his teeth. Or dressing up in a camouflage clown suit and going on a mini-hunger strike (15 minutes long) with Cindy Sheehan.

Much as I respect military service, I think status as a veteran is a ridiculous single issue basis for deciding between candidates. Among other things, it has a discriminatory impact on women.

Why? Even though women may be kept from combat roles there is nothing preventing women from enlisting in the military and becoming a veteran. My aunt from Texas served in the Army for 30 years without going into combat and when she retired; she’s considered as much a veteran as her husband.

Much as I cringed at Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" moment, it is true that his identification with veterans is one of his most consistent characteristics. The few active moments in his somnolent career as a Senator generally have had to do with veteran's issues.

The problem is that "veteran" identifies someone's status, not their thinking. This, I think is also typical of Kerry: the idea that status is the same as having a position; that filling a role is the same as being a leader.

"Actually, the best of the Democratic Iraqi War veterans is a woman, Maj. Tammy Duckworth"

She's running in my district to replace Henry Hyde, who is retiring. The deal killer for me is she is being backed by Rahm Emanuel, who used to be an armtwister for both Mayor Ritchie Daley, and good ol' Bill Clinton himself. Mayor Daley has been slavering for years to get his hands on suburban tax receipts to fund his machine in Chicago, so electing someone that tied in to his organization might not go over well.

That said, it's been a real quiet campaign; I haven't received any material from either Maj. Duckworth or her opponent, Peter Roskam. Here's a link to some background on the race, from Roskam's website:

http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view.cfm?id=-871186141

I'm thinking Rahm is dreaming on this one, but we'll see come November.

As for women, I know they can serve. My mother served in WWII. I would not exist if women did not serve (because my parents met in the Army). I'm just saying there's a disparate impact. A lot of those male veterans were drafted. There is not an equivalent pool of female ex-draftees. Also, there isn't the same culture and tradition of women joining the military, so fewer have gotten the idea.

If military service is a trump card then the Purple Heart is the wild card. Anybody claiming to be a recpient of a Purple Heart who is running for office should back it up with the full release of their service record.

Many guys I know didn't ask for a Purple Heart but were eventually given one based on their actions under fire, NOT JUST BEING IN A COMBAT ZONE! (emphasis mine.)

They are playing on the public's ignorance of the procedures involved.

Joe Lieberman is being snubbed for a variety of reasons, none of them nobel! He is a man of integrity and moral conviction. I take him very seriously!

Yet another signal that Joe Lieberman is probably in far more serious trouble than many people believe. That is to say that a lot of insiders with a high degree of political acumen, unlike us amateurs, are becoming convinced that if Lieberman doesn't pull off the primary victory, he's not gonna win in November.

So, Randy "Duke" Cunningham would meet Kerry's criteria. He was a frikkin' fighter ace after all. He just didn't turn out to be all that great of a legislator. Well, sample set of one will have anomolies like that.

Ann, the implications of his statement just keep rolling in. It's another example of him overthinking himself right into an absurdity. The only saving grace is that the more he does this, the less I fear his making any headway toward the 2008 nomination.

Compliments on that insight, Henry. I think you're right--Kerry is a psychological aristocratic in that the office--or title--automatically makes the man. Louis XIV woulda loved him. Since he was hand-picked by the Kennedy clan, he actually does fit into the old-world hereditary monarchial system far better than he does 21st century America.

"But, are openly gay and disabled persons running for office in large numbers?"

You don't have to be openly gay to decide you shouldn't join the military. You're in danger of losing your position if the information comes out. Also, a gay person could fairly decide I don't belong here. Later, the person runs for office and doesn't talk about his or her sexuality.

Yeah, Kerry didn't notice the discrimination. I just think it's funny that his self-righteousness is so easy to puncture.

Much as I respect military service, I think status as a veteran is a ridiculous single issue basis for deciding between candidates. Among other things, it has a discriminatory impact on women.

That may be a valid argument for not making an issue of a male candidate's status as a veteran if he's running against a woman who isn't. It's a much weaker argument against making it an issue if a female veteran runs against a male non-veteran, and it's no argument at all if the race is a veteran and a non-veteran of the same sex.

"If military service is a trump card then the Purple Heart is the wild card. Anybody claiming to be a recpient of a Purple Heart who is running for office should back it up with the full release of their service record.

Many guys I know didn't ask for a Purple Heart but were eventually given one based on their actions under fire, NOT JUST BEING IN A COMBAT ZONE! (emphasis mine.)"

David, while I might agree with what you say in general, anyone who got a purple heart for being in a combat zone, or for their actions in combat should not have received a Purple Heart. The Purple Heart is only awarded for wounds inflicted by enemy action, and the only criterion is that a wound be received. Merely (bad word, nothing merely about it) either being in a combat zone or doing something in action does not entitle receipt of a Purple Heart. Any wound, no matter how minor, DOES entitle that person to one, as long as the wound was from enemy action.

Anyone who claims a PH based on what you said, is not only a liar at best, but is violating a federal law if he/she actually wears the medal.

On about October 24, General McClellan wired Washington that he was nearly ready to move, but needed more horses "urgently" because his were "broken down" by rough service and foot-and-mouth disease. He was replying to another Halleck telegram requesting news of the Army's movement and plans.

Lincoln was furious, and fired off a telegram on October 25:

"I have just read your dispatch about sore-tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?"

The next day an offended General McClellan reported that his army was crossing the Potomac, and Lincoln offered something of an apology by saying he had intended "no injustice to any", but that his concern was warranted considering the more than five weeks of inactivity since the battle. By now the President had had enough of the excuses and delays. He resolved to relieve the commander of the Army of the Potomac if McClellan let Robert E. Lee erase his advantage of position and get between the Federals and Richmond.

It subsequently took McClellan nine days to get all of his army across the river, and in that time Lee indeed beat him to Richmond. Tuesday, November 4 was election day in the North. On November 7, Lincoln relieved McClellan of his command and sent him home to New Jersey to await further orders.

"It is discriminatory against women not because women are not allowed to enlist in the military. Of course they can enlist. It is discriminatory when you consider that far fewer women enlist than men."

And:

"As for women, I know they can serve. My mother served in WWII. I would not exist if women did not serve (because my parents met in the Army). I'm just saying there's a disparate impact."

How is it discrimination if women have a choice but choose not to exercise it? Much as I dislike Kerry I do not see wher he is responsible for the consequences of other peoples' choices.

By that reasoning refusing to endorse anyone who didn't graduate from high school would be racist, since more blacks drop out than whites.

That said, I doubt that is his real motivation, he's just trying to duck a difficult dicision.

The truly delightful thing is that Kerry is trying to duck a difficult decision and exposing his weak flank, and being disloyal, and does it all in that uniquely tin-eared style. A plethora of Kerry foibles, altogether in one shot. Makes me a little teary eyed.

Oh, Buddy, we think so differently. Humble, industrious and hardworking? When exactly? When he was partying up till age 40? Investing other people's money? You really think the man ever punched a clock and worked for a living? Sigh. How many burros have a pedigree including two senators, a head spook and a diplomat? Those two fellows were from the same stock, spoiled and sheltered from work and industry their whole lives.

Let us hope for better choices two years hence, maybe a couple of folks who've actually made their own way in life.

Especially Gore. I think I read once that he had to work at a Taco Bell to earn money for a bicycle one summer, and how he paid his way through college, and how he served on the front lines in Vietnam.

What? I didn't read that? Oh, well, never mind.

Maybe it was Howard Dean. I read he spent a good deal of time in Colorado in his early 20s. No doubt scraping by because he had no other way of surviving.

Okay, but nobody picks his own parents, and he could've just laid out on the beach at Cannes, rather than try to lead this fractious nation in these parlous times. But, let me write your reply for you: "I wish the hell he WOULD've just lain on the beach at Cannes!" To which I say....:)

You read my mind, Buddy! But I will add, too, that Kerry could have made the same choice. He chose to serve overseas, and has subsequently served in Congress longer than Bush has been involved in any public service.

Again, there's not a lotta air between the two asses. They're sons of privilege, and frankly I'd like to see some candidates who seem less predestined to assume their exalted positions. A Clinton who can keep his pants on, for example.

This is exclusively and transparently about Kerry and his overarching concern with what the ever-so-precious and vaunted-without-merit "netroots" thinks about him. Lieberman has the misfortune of being in the netroots gun sights for the sin of being an American before being a Bush-hating, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing partisan Democrat.

1. By veteran, the author included all forms of national service: cleaning up hospital bed pans, testing HIV vaccines and testing space suits on the surface of the moon would be examples. The theory was that you signed up, took a battery of tests, stated your preference, and got assigned. You could quit at any time, but forever lost the right to serve/vote. All national service was equal.

2. Note that this approach would allow all classes of Ann's discriminated groups to participate fully.

3. The theory was that veterans weren't smarter, or better educated, than other methods, but rather by their service had demonstrated that, "they were willing to place the common good ahead of personal advantage". Not a bad requirement for either voters or Congresspersons.

Madisonman; I think it's safe to assume that seeing as how both candidates, McClellan and Seymour, running for the Democratic nomination in 1864, were veterans of the Mexican-American war, that Mr. Kerry would have no problem endorsing them. Especially as the platform of the Democrats called for immediate negotiation with the CSA to end the war. If he could, hypothetically, endorse either of these veterans in the primary then he would also urge people to vote for one of these veterans vs. Abraham Lincoln.

The only complication, Pat, would be that Lincoln was strongly against the Mexican War. In fact, it might have it retired him from politics for a short time. His disagreement used language that sounds very familiar today, re OIF.

Except for Gore did go to Vietnam and that character was based off him (and before someone mentions it he did take the initiative in creating the Internet).

Drill SGT, while Heinlein did later try to retcon Starship Troopers to imply that any generic form of civil service would get the franchise that's not really supported by the book. There's a good essay on that here (pdf).

I tend to go the other way. As much as I respect people for serving, the way the military functions makes most people who have served damaged goods in my book. It's too political and beaurocratic, sloppy, corrupt, inefficient,and all about conformity and preseving the status quo. Same reason I wouln't want anyone who's been in Congress to be elected President.

But that's politics, right? Didn't you just say on the last thread, that gay people (and here women) have to fight their own battles and do some convincing of the majority to get anywhere?

I think Gene at 4:17 has it right: "How is it discrimination if women have a choice but choose not to exercise it?" and "By that (disparate impact) reasoning, refusing to endorse anyone who didn't graduate from high school would be racist, since more blacks drop out than whites."

And isn't this statement of the hostess kinda insulting to independent-thinking women?

"There is not an equivalent pool of female ex-draftees. Also, there isn't the same culture and tradition of women joining the military, so fewer have gotten the idea."

Doesn't it kinda sound like women make career choices the way they choose their toenail polish and wardrobe: simply by following other people/women because they can't properly think for themselves?

Maybe it's a generational or class thing, but most of the women I know realized that the military was "open" to them and they were quite welcome there. No patronizing "convincing" needed to "get the idea". I'm glad of it too. Private Benjamins need convincing; real women, who are serving in droves, need no more convincing than military men. Making gender distinctions here does a disservice to those women, imo.

aaron: Maybe you should just come out with what you're saying. The implications sound ugly, and would not be a boon for recruitment, I am guessing.

Of course, we also have to look at the 1992 and 1998 presidential elections, where Kerry endorsed the non-veteran over the war heroes. The first of them was shot down in the Pacific, and was rescued by sub, while the second was permanently disabled while leading men with the 10th Mtn. Div. in Italy. The winner of the contest, and the candidate supported by Kerry, got out of service to Vietnam by essentially lying about his intentions to evade a draft notice.

As for Paddy's reference to the last presidential election, we are not really sure if Mr. Kerry ever did finish his service honorably. Both he and Mr. Bush had similar active service obligations, which both apparently completed. But then they both had similar reserve/NG requirements, which we know that Mr. Bush did technically complete, because, according to his released military records, he did get in the required hours (though he did lose his flight status), and he did get his honorable discharge on time as a result.

We frankly don't know whether Mr. Kerry served even one hour of his Naval Reserve committment, since he has, to date, not released his military records. We also don't know if he technically qualified for his honorable discharge, based on fulfilling the requirements that he had agreed to in order to join the Reserves (and, thus, avoid his pending draft notice). What we do know is that his honorable discharge was awarded approximately six years later than it should have been, and appears to have been granted via Carter's amnesty. Of course, he could clear all this up, by releasing those records...

Nevertheless, I am continually tempted to try to (amateurly) psychoanalyze Mr. Kerry and his relationship to military service. Most others who served, just note it and go on. When Bob Dole was running for president, I knew that he had been Senate majority leader, and ultimately, that he had been wounded in Italy, but it was only later that I realized that he had spent years recouperating, and has been disabled ever since. I really didn't realize that the elder Mr. Bush had jumped out of his shot-down plane and floated in the Pacific until rescued, until his 75th(?) birthday when he did his second jump - this time out of a "perfectly good" plane.

And yet, Mr. Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam seem to have been the centerpiece of his life. Not only is that the big reason he gave for voting form him over Mr. Bush, but he is using military service as a reason to endorse or not endorse even now.

Final note here - I know a several Vietnam Vets who voted against Kerry this last election who had never voted Republican before in their lives. His 4 months, 3 Purple Hearts, and out, wouldn't have lost their votes - though they had had to suffer through their entire tours over there. Rather, it was his testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities that did it. These guys knew they hadn't committed atrocities, but were being tarred by Kerry before the world. Add in his meeting with the NV, and he lost their votes. Back to psychoanalysis - is it possible that part of his military service insistance is his trying to rejoin the other Vietnam Vets, after having turned his back and alienated them so long ago?

I'd be careful about setting up a straw man. Are the candidates he opposes women? Are they gay, or disabled? Or are they hawks who support the war? There is a critical distinction. Somebody like Lieberman, who is 40 years too old to enlist, is one thing, but a candidate who supports the war and (for candidates of a certain age, like Cheney) chose not to enlist, it is fair not to support them based on their hypocritical position.

Mary's right--who'd ever thought, on 9-12-01, that by now there'd be constitutional democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, universal suffrage newly in Kuwait, Syria out of a democratic Lebanon, Libya joining the coalition against the jihad, AQ asking the Paki gov't for a truce, the top echelon of worldwide terror 90% dead or in stir, and all for a cost in blood and treasure still less than the losses of 911--of which there has not been the universally-expected, on 9-12-01, next, and next, and next.

Mary, those whose votes are for sale can only assume that everyone else's is too. The cuts were pro-rata, the new code is more steeply progressive, federal tax receipts have grown 15% per year since the cuts, and the unemployment rate is 4+% and considered 'full' employment.

Your beef must mean that poorer economic performance, more unemployed people, and less tax receipts for Uncle Sam are worth trading off for the pleasure of punishing society's higher achievers.

As for your other complaints, granted, all is not good--but what about the things I mentioned? No comment?

Mary, I don't mean to come back and pick on you, but the remark about the casualties is stinging, and I want to say something.

I've studied history all my life, from all political angles, and the evidence of my own eyes, and many others like me, when applied to repeated patterns of history, suggest strongly that, unless we want to see a very different world and one which augers to be very unpleasant and impoverished, we were going to have to fight--as long ago as the 70s--this new religious totalitarianism.

The only questions have been when, and what would be the cost, and even would we win.

Since the jihad--as you yourself say, is always trying to grow and become stronger, then--unless we want to stake a very great bet that it would, contrary to all evidence, die all by itself--we were going to have to fight it.

And--this is crucial--at a cost that would increase per time.

So, point is, when you regard the casualties, try to keep open in your mind that they haven't sacrificed for nothing, or for one crazy president's madness--but to forestall even greater carnage down the road, sooner or later.

And it's not all academic, either--I'm an old south and central america hand, having spent much of the late 70s and early 80s out in the jungles attached to drilling rigs, and have seen bad guys--sandinistas, castro-cubans up close and personal. you want to keep 'em down or far away, Mary, believe me, and they weren't even in the same league with these suicidal jihadis.

Just read your last posts--sorry we crossed--you're right--pain and misery are awful things. I used to hunt, but quit some years ago--got too soft-hearted. I wish the heck things didn't work as they do in the world. Hiding your head in the sand works for some, for awhile, but is hell on those who come after. Oh well. Best to you, Mary.